I have been reluctant to write about this because it is gut-wrenchingly nasty, yet gut-wrenchingly predictable. The movement to normalize pedophilia is now active and out of the closet.
Normalization is the process started by Kinsey, who declared that all sexuality was merely part of a spectrum, and the whole spectrum is normal behavior. He knew that two ways, by interviewing sexual predator prisoners, and by engaging in all types of sexual behavior himself, along with his team and their wives. The Kinsey Report is the basis for much of what has proceeded in the sexualization of America.
The normalization of homosexuality occurred in the mid 1970’s. Homosexuality was removed as a category of "disorder" from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which is the rule book established by the American Psychiatric Association. The normalization was forced by internal protests by homosexual members who wanted their own pathology redefined as normal behavior, part of a spectrum of sexual behaviors all of which are normal, according to Kinsey anyway. The slippery slope leading to the normalization of all, ALL, sexual behaviors was denied at the time: we are just homosexual; we are not pedophiles – they are perverts.
But if the argument worked for the normalization of the tiny minority of homosexuals, why should the same argument be denied any of the other minority sexual practices? If homosexuality is normalized, there is no remaining restriction on any conceivable sexual behavior, because the argument is exactly the same… and the potential for moral restraint is entirely dismissed: morals are relative and of no consequence in modern society.
Kinsey reported that child sexuality is normal. It's all just a part of the normal spectrum of human sexual behavior.
So what remains to be done? Merely to normalize pedophilia in the APA’s DSM, and then to remove any age of consent limitations on child sexuality.
Following California’s lead, it can be expected that Pedophilia will be ordered to be taught as an acceptable lifestyle in the government schools. The accomplishments and sterling characters of pedophiles must be taught in history courses. Man/child safe sex practices will be demonstrated. Non-discrimination will be enforced.
While I am tempted to rant on about the consequences of the lack of morals in society, I need to leave off here; it is just too disgusting to continue.
But I have one further thought. If there is just a spectrum of sexual behaviors, all of which are normal, then there must be a spectrum of other behaviors, all of which are normal. In fact, all behaviors could be defined as part of a normal spectrum, leaving no behaviors definable as "disorders". This means that all behaviors are normalized and if a person's behavior is a problem for other persons, then the other persons need to be reminded of their obligation for "TOLERANCE". Thus making Intolerance the only remaining disorder.
18 comments:
And of course we know that homosexuality was declassified by the APA due to activism and coersion, not any groundbreaking research. This link makes for an interesting read.
http://pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html
Thomas,
That's exactly what they said about homosexuality, 37 years ago. The slippery slope has been greased. The fact that you consider only the outcomes of pedophilia to be "crazy", and not pedophilia itself, indicates how far down the slope you, at least, are.
In fact, normalized pedophilia is a "crazy outcome" of normalized homosexuality. And normalized homosexuality is a "crazy outcome" of Leftist, value-free, tolerance-laden, judgment impaired, secular ethics.
But of course, craziness no longer exists in a society where every obscene and aberrant behavior is normalized, so your charge is nullified under the Leftist ethic du jour.
I should add that if children are not protected from the Leftist approval of sexual adventurism, then there is no boundary left that cannot be easily and quickly breached.
children can't consent. adults can.
Consent is not a test for aberrant behavior. Consent is a legal term which is based on a moral premise. Moral premises are not considered valid for use in psychological theories.
Stan,
Consent is not a test for aberrant behavior. Consent is a legal term which is based on a moral premise. Moral premises are not considered valid for use in psychological theories.
Being knee deep in Thomism now, I can clearly see a basis for morality that is largely in line with yours.
But I'm curious. What is your moral theory? Deontologist, obviously. But where from there? How would you go about doing a "test" to see if something is moral or not?
If morality is directions given by a deity delivered by the Bible, how do Christians know pedophilia is morally wrong?
Stan,
Consent is not a test for aberrant behaviour, indeed, but it is at least a barrier which will prevent pedophilia from ever becoming legal, is it not?
Fred,
The fight has just begun for pedophilia. The first step is to legitimize the behavior within psychological circles. Then the arduous propaganda struggle begins, and the portrayal of the adult pedophile as victimized by pedophilophobes, who are the "actual criminals" and who will be brow-beaten into silence as moralizing "bigots". It will be shown that respected historical figures were "probably" pedophiles. The health benefits of pedophilia will be stressed. Religions of all stripes will be demonized. The age of consent will be shown to be an artifact of religious dogma, which must be purged from the law books as discriminatory and anti-secular. Anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws will be passed to protect the victimized pedophile. What the majority of the population thinks doesn't matter. Not even the majority of psychologists.
At least that's what worked for homosexuals. Alinsky works if it is not fought and fought hard.
In other words, the Secular Left will moralize loudly, while pushing a totally amoral agenda.
The cult of "Anything Goes".
Anyone in favor of pushing to "normalize" burning Leftists at the stake?
/sarcasm
I fair your argument is horribly invalid. A sexual intercorse must be practised on the condition that both sides desire to do it. If a gay couple of legal age want to practise sex, they are free to do it however they want. But a man/woman wants to practise sex with a child of illegal age, it is called sexual abuse. I could not understand how you put them in the same place.
Here's how that would work: the age of consent would be abolished as "discriminatory". The perverted science of Kinsey would be used to argue that children 'benefit" from sex, and that sex is normal for children. So depriving the children of the opportunity for sex is abuse, and therefore the "age of consent" restriction is discriminatory.
Nearly the same argument used by homosexuals in their quest to appear non-pathological and to be normalized.
Stan,
http://www.slate.com/id/2277787/
Perhaps this should be in the source-of-morality thread (if there is one).
Interestingly, the author asserts that incest is wrong and gives a 'rational' reason (i.e. no God) for why this is so. As far as I can tell, it is because "A sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit." This destructive effect... occurs even if the sex is adult and consensual, since "parents do not cease being parents … when their minor child reaches the age of majority."
If destructiveness to the family unit (no criteria for what that exactly means) is the basis for the immorality of incest, then what about the freedom to divorce? Surely, that's destructive as well. (tellingly, most religions either ban or make divorce quite difficult). Or what about when the wife/mother decides to work, and perhaps even makes more money than the father? Surely, this might confuse the clarity of family roles and may have a destructive effect on the cohesion of the marriage by (very likely) humiliating the father? On the children (especially if they're always in daycare)? One need only look at more traditional societes (and western history) to see examples of women not being allowed to work, to socialise outside the family unit, to drive, many things, for these very reasons.
Also, what about a case where the father has abandoned the family when the children are too young to remember him and then one of the children as an adult forms a consensual sexual relationship with him? No case can be made for grooming (many commenters in the Epstein case believe he must've groomed her for years beforhand if not abused outright) nor for the damage to children's development (especially if the mother remarried) nor of destructiveness to the family unit. Yes, the parent-child relationship continues even as adults, but, frankly, if the child is in her 20s or, say, 30s, well, it all becomes rather weak. It's consensual, no damage was done to the family, to the children while they were minors. By the author's rationale, in this case incest would be ok.
It's all very weak. I suspect this would be the case in the end for every 'rational' basis for moral behaviour that's been given though I'm certain.
I've ignored the homosexual question just to keep it simple.
Am curious about any further nuggets you may catch in there and how it relates to your blog post, if at all.
"It's all very weak. I suspect this would be the case in the end for every 'rational' basis for moral behaviour that's been given..."
All rational justifications for or against an issue boil down to a list of pros and cons. The weight given each item on the list can be argued virtually forever. Even the cons can be argued as pros and vice versa.
As with all "ethics", it is only opinion vs. opinion. Without a moral grounding in an absolute, ethics is merely a set of behaviors floating in a sea of opinion, the right to which is to be won by whatever means is necessary.
I recently discovered some of the writings of Arthur Leff, who was a law professor at Yale. He makes this point: when someone poses an ethic, it is legitimate to ask: "Sez who?". Until someone is found who has perfect moral authority, there is no "who" available to authorize any human opinion as a moral. It requires a "Grand Sez Who", an infallible being, to create a moral.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4531646/Arthur-Leff-Unspeakable-Ethics-Unnatural-Law
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2814/
I recommend the second link as a first intro to Leff. He died far too young.
Anonymous,
It is cowardly to remain anonymous.
First you assert a "fact" without any data; second you assert a "moral" judgment without any moral authority.
Your comment is without either logical or moral force.
Stan, would you be so kind as to point me to the individuals/movements/journals/research in psychiatry or psychology that/who is trying to advocate pedophilia? I'm sure there are some, but I assure you they are a marginalized and extreme minority.
If you were really familiar with the rational basis behind rejecting pedophilia, you'd agree that it has a pretty solid constitution. Someone commented earlier that the normalization of homosexuality (which is a great thing we should all be proud of, in my opinion) is evidence of a slippery slope that can only lead to development of similar attitudes towards pedophilia. That is wrong.
Homosexuality fails to fit into any of the criteria that qualify something as a mental pathology:
1. Harm to others or self
2. Personal distress
3. Inability to fulfill necessary obligations, (viz, employment, parenthood).
4. In violation of cultural norms (which is flexible and changes over time).
After the pro-gay movement, homosexuality was definitively exempt from #4. Furthermore, there is no solid evidence that it fulfills any of the other criteria. Anal sex between two men behind closed doors fails to impact my life (nor anyone else's) in any meaningful way, let alone in a harmful way. Neither does men wearing hot-pants.
The threat to other posed by pedophilia, however, is far too significant to ignore. Granted, there is some research that suggests pedophilic sexual abuse isn't *as* harmful down the line as one might think, but the fact remains that sexual abuse has been shown, and continues to demonstrate, traumatic effects on the young and developing mind that in some cases cripples their development. Removing this risk is improbable, especially when one of the participants is considered much too young to make informed decisions about virtually anything (hence why they can't smoke, drink, vote, etc.)
Plus, your average Joe (whether liberal, conservative, black, white, man, or woman [Josephine?]) finds pedophilia absolutely repulsive. It is implicitly listed as unacceptable behavior in our society. Hence why 'To Catch a Predator' is so popular.
Thus, pedophilia meets criteria #1 and #4. For those reasons it is qualitatively different from homosexuality.
There is no significant intellectual movement to normalize pedophilia. You are sensationalizing something of little consequence in a amateurish attempt to discredit rational and empirical inquiry. But I guess the same thing could be said about 80% of the garbage you post.
(p.s. please approve this comment. I would love to debate this issue with you and the other denizens of this blog!)
Kritical Strike,
Your well-poisoning is duly noted.
You are free to leave this “garbage” blog, and repair to your compatriots.
Or you can remain here and be civil.
Your issue will be addressed in a new post, probably tomorrow morning. You can enter discussions there.
The post on Pedophilia and Progressivism has become lengthy and detailed. Maybe tomorrow it will publish.
Post a Comment